On 07/06/22 at 07:43 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:29:57PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > DRAFT
> >
> > Using its powers under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee
> > issues the following advice:
>
> I've given this some thought and feel uneasy about
Re: Lucas Nussbaum
> A middle ground between (4) and (4b) could be to discourage the use of
> 1.0-with-diff in circumstances where it is not justified. Something
> like:
>
> 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
> 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source p
Re: Sean Whitton
> * Do we want to start systematically announcing decisions to d-d-a right
> after we make them?
I think we should make it part of the decision where to post it.
Things like the rename.ul issue do not warrant a d-d-a posting, but a
note on debian-devel might make sense.
Christo
Helmut Grohne writes ("Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source
package format with non-native version""):
> What would you think about adding an alternative option 4?
>
> 4b. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
> 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particul
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:33:25AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Sean Whitton
> > * Do we want to start systematically announcing decisions to d-d-a right
> > after we make them?
>
> I think we should make it part of the decision where to post it.
> Things like the rename.ul issue do not wa
On 07/06/2022 07:08, Sean Whitton wrote:
I agree, it's not about the benefits of the source format, we do indeed
understand all the trade-offs by now. It's that certain ideas and
workflows *which are not really about source packages* are made
inconvenient or impossible if we remove this option.
Christoph Berg writes ("Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source
package format with non-native version""):
> Re: Lucas Nussbaum
> > 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
> > 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package,
> > including,
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 11:08:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I think this argument needs to be made more precise -- we should be
> clearer about why this particular un-uniformity is bad. I don't think
> the issue for new contributors is persuasive enough, as new contributors
> can mos
Hello,
On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 09:31am +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> A middle ground between (4) and (4b) could be to discourage the use of
> 1.0-with-diff in circumstances where it is not justified. Something
> like:
>
> 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
> 1.0-with-dif
Hello,
On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 08:19pm +02, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Please keep in mind that this is about trade-offs. It is a question of
> how we value "package ownership". If we favour the strong ownership
> approach that Debian used for a long time, then yes accommodating the
> needs of maintain
Hello,
On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 11:26am +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In this case I would like to suggest that progress would be better
> served by trying to unblock a better source format that (i) has some
> kind of delta representation (ii) does not put a
> needing-to-be-maintained copy of the delta
Hello,
On Tue 10 May 2022 at 05:29pm -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> At today's ctte meeting we considered whether we can start a vote on
> this, but two committee members were missing, and someone else at the
> meeting reported that they hadn't yet been able to spend enough time
> thinking through th
12 matches
Mail list logo
